COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (II) Vs. NITIN AMINCHAND SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one more instance where this time the Revenue has approached this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the orders at "Annexure C" and "Annexure E" be set aside and the Appeal No. C/301/09 -Mum should be re -heard and in accordance with law by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT). This Writ Petition narrates the circumstances in which the Revenue has made this somewhat unusual request. The show cause notices and which have been issued to the parties whose names are enlisted at page 8 of the paper book were adjudicated and the order -in -original dated 11 -3 -2005 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, CSI, Airport, Mumbai confirming the re -determined value, confiscating the rough diamonds absolutely and imposing penalties.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed on 11 -3 -2005, the assessees/Importers filed appeals before the CESTAT. The CESTAT while deciding the stay applications took the appeals themselves and heard them finally. The case was remanded back to the adjudicating authority on the ground that the minutes of valuation were not signed by all the members of the expert panel of the Gem and Jewellery Expert Promotion Council and the importers were not allowed to cross -examine the members of the expert panel before the case was decided. This initial order passed by the CESTAT is dated 16 -6 -2005.

(3.) IN the initial order passed on 6 -8 -2013 by the CESTAT, there was difference of opinion between the Member (Judicial) and the Member (Technical). The Member (Judicial) was of the opinion that for the reasons indicated by him the appeals of the Importers deserve to be allowed. Whereas the Member (Technical) passed a separate order upholding the Department's stand, but yet remanded the case to the Commissioner for ascertaining the value of the impugned goods by constituting a Panel in accordance with the departmental instructions. Thereafter, the parties were to be given a fresh opportunity of hearing.